LIPIDATA SYSTEM LIMITED, MADRI Vs. KANWARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. We do not find any infirmity or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Labour Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence on record that the respondent-workman was wrongly removed from the service. It was found that the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was not complied with and the removal of the respondent-workman amounted to retrenchment. Learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court and rightly so.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-workman had abandoned the job and, therefore, it was not a case of removal.

(3.) In the evidence of the appellant, it has come that no notice was issued to the respondent-workman with regard to his alleged act of abandonment. It is also not in dispute that no action was taken by the appellant against respondent for his alleged absence from the service.